Another thing is inactivity. Obviously people have lives, but if a mod is going to be active with the community then that's just silly.

I'm confused as to what you're saying O.o

I feel like i've missed something really big, or that i'm dancing around the thing I really want to say. Problem is, I can't think of it :/

anyway, I prefer thread locking to deletion. It's easier to see what went wrong, and if everyone is like me and reads every locked thread (they're pretty visible, and i'm usually curious) then we won't get as many threads that need to be locked. People learn from others' mistakes.

At 8/23/12 10:25 AM, Zachary wrote:
As stated a few times in this thread previously, I think that the forum needs more interaction between the mods and the users.

I definitely agree with that. It does seem like we see moderators posting less frequently these days but I think that the same can be said for a lot of the users that were recognised as "regulars" as well. It just feels like things have been slowing down a lot as of recent and I'd hate to see that trend continue. I'd like to see some energy pumped back into this place.

I spend a lot of my time in the VG forums and even when I'm not specifically using my computer to browse these forums, I still like to periodically check my inbox and make sure nothing terrible is happening on the forums. I think that as a result of this thread I'm going to try and spend some more time in the General forum seeing as that's where the bulk of the userbase likes to chill.

The rules are made very clear so there is a clear punishment for breaking each individual rule, or class of rules. These punishments can range from a warning to an account deletion. If the same rule is broken again after a ban, the length of the ban is tripled. If the ban becomes over than a year long, the account is deleted.

Despite the strictness, the offending post will be reviewed by at least two moderators so as to clear any possibility of a misunderstanding rather than an actual offence.

Chat bans are given the same way as BBS bans are.

If a banned user gives an appeal, the appeals must be spell-checked and give valid explanations for the post the user was banned for. At least two moderators will then look at the offending post alongside the appeal to see if the grammar, spelling and vocabulary match up. This is to see if the appeal was either written by somebody else or if the banned user looked up synonyms for 'wrong' on Google. Appeals that slag off the moderators will also be used as a reason to ban a user for longer than they were previously.

Users can be banned for PMs if the victim gives legitimate evidence to the moderator to ban the sender from using the PM system and forums for at least three days. If the evidence is found to be fake, the ban is transferred to the "victim" and doubled. The same multiple-offence rules apply afterwards.

Moderators are allowed to become friends with other users, but since most offences are reviewed by more than one moderator, any favouritism can be detected and the moderator responsible will be stripped of their position.

Moderators who speak overtly of the people they have banned with regular users, will also be stripped of their position.
Speak of banned users between moderators is permitted because that's how moderators who give punishments more or less severe than the punishments stated by the rules, can be caught.

Moderators are above the regular users in the hierarchy because they ought to be.

In the event that a regular user tries to pull off a sirtom93, the moderators' only job is to give as much infomation to the admins as possible. No bans to the user's account should be given as there is a chance that the user may give some evidence and information that can be used against them in court.

At 8/23/12 11:33 AM, w33zl wrote:
Despite the strictness, the offending post will be reviewed by at least two moderators so as to clear any possibility of a misunderstanding rather than an actual offence.

I like that. It ensures "fairness" as much as possible without causing backup or lag in the system.

Chat bans are given the same way as BBS bans are.

I don't like that as much. Problem is, chat goes by much quicker than a BBS post. You should have to get a second opinion pretty quickly. I'd say short bans (hours, a day at max) by one moderator would be perfect for a chat.

If a banned user gives an appeal, the appeals must be spell-checked and give valid explanations for the post the user was banned for. At least two moderators will then look at the offending post alongside the appeal to see if the grammar, spelling and vocabulary match up. This is to see if the appeal was either written by somebody else or if the banned user looked up synonyms for 'wrong' on Google. Appeals that slag off the moderators will also be used as a reason to ban a user for longer than they were previously.

ehh... Even though i'm a bit of a grammar nazi, I don't like that. Nobody's perfect. Also, what offense do you take if someone else wrote the appeal? If it's giving valid, logical reasons it shouldn't matter who it comes from.
Okay, yeah, if you're using an appeal to shit-talk you deserve to be banned for a little longer. Seriously, who does that? It's a waste of everyone's time.

Users can be banned for PMs if the victim gives legitimate evidence to the moderator to ban the sender from using the PM system and forums for at least three days. If the evidence is found to be fake, the ban is transferred to the "victim" and doubled. The same multiple-offence rules apply afterwards.

at least three days? I think if you promote someone to "moderator" status, you should be able to trust them to make judgments for themselves.
I neither like nor dislike the second part (fake evidence)

Moderators are allowed to become friends with other users, but since most offences are reviewed by more than one moderator, any favouritism can be detected and the moderator responsible will be stripped of their position.

Again, everyone makes mistakes. It's impossible to be unbiased. Stripping of the position is too harsh. As long as the final judgement is fair, who cares?

Moderators who speak overtly of the people they have banned with regular users, will also be stripped of their position.
Speak of banned users between moderators is permitted because that's how moderators who give punishments more or less severe than the punishments stated by the rules, can be caught.

the "because" part was unnecessary.
Also, ehh... I can see why it's good to have some privacy on the bans, but at the same time if someone goes "why was this guy banned?" and you say "can't tell you, sorry" it's a bit of a put-off and creates more of a distance between users and moderators. Moderators should "fit in" with the users, that's what they're there for. To regulate and control, but also to be the closest administrative position to the users. If you put distance between the two groups, then look at how big the gap gets between the owner and the users.

Moderators are above the regular users in the hierarchy because they ought to be.

yes and no. Yes, there should be a "hierarchy" of permissions because let's face it: there's douchebags in the world.
Still doesn't mean one person is better than another.
opinions "good" and "bad" people are based upon respect.

In the event that a regular user tries to pull off a sirtom93, the moderators' only job is to give as much infomation to the admins as possible. No bans to the user's account should be given as there is a chance that the user may give some evidence and information that can be used against them in court.

a "sirtom93"? Something about threats and an arrested kid?
That's about all I got from google. Seems this news is pretty ancient and buried under legends and myths.

At 8/23/12 11:57 AM, egg82 wrote:
I don't like that as much. Problem is, chat goes by much quicker than a BBS post. You should have to get a second opinion pretty quickly. I'd say short bans (hours, a day at max) by one moderator would be perfect for a chat.

That's what appeals are for. We are not Facebook.

ehh... Even though i'm a bit of a grammar nazi, I don't like that. Nobody's perfect. Also, what offense do you take if someone else wrote the appeal? If it's giving valid, logical reasons it shouldn't matter who it comes from.

It should, because that's the difference between someone who's an idiot, and a reformed idiot.

Okay, yeah, if you're using an appeal to shit-talk you deserve to be banned for a little longer. Seriously, who does that? It's a waste of everyone's time.

Indeed.

at least three days? I think if you promote someone to "moderator" status, you should be able to trust them to make judgments for themselves.
I neither like nor dislike the second part (fake evidence)

The ban length would be given the same way I suggested all the other bans should be given.

Again, everyone makes mistakes. It's impossible to be unbiased. Stripping of the position is too harsh. As long as the final judgement is fair, who cares?

A biased system is a corrupt system. No wonder the USA is in shit all of the time.

the "because" part was unnecessary.
Also, ehh... I can see why it's good to have some privacy on the bans, but at the same time if someone goes "why was this guy banned?" and you say "can't tell you, sorry" it's a bit of a put-off and creates more of a distance between users and moderators. Moderators should "fit in" with the users, that's what they're there for. To regulate and control, but also to be the closest administrative position to the users. If you put distance between the two groups, then look at how big the gap gets between the owner and the users.

You don't go up to a murder scene and ask the police why there's a dead body on the floor, do you? A user is banned because they broke the rules.

Moderators should fit in, yes. That's why I said they can become friends with regular users.

yes and no. Yes, there should be a "hierarchy" of permissions because let's face it: there's douchebags in the world.

Who are in power here? The douchebags?

Still doesn't mean one person is better than another.

It actually does.

opinions "good" and "bad" people are based upon respect.

No, they aren't. They're based on being good and bad. And who are you quoting here?

a "sirtom93"? Something about threats and an arrested kid?
That's about all I got from google. Seems this news is pretty ancient and buried under legends and myths.

Sirtom93 was a user who posted a thread saying he was going to go to his high school with a petrol tank and burn his school down. Authorities were contacted.

At 8/23/12 11:33 AM, w33zl wrote:
Users can be banned for PMs if the victim gives legitimate evidence to the moderator to ban the sender from using the PM system and forums for at least three days. If the evidence is found to be fake, the ban is transferred to the "victim" and doubled. The same multiple-offence rules apply afterwards.

This makes no sense because the PM system has nothing to do with the forum. On top of that it would be too much of a headache and too easy to fake.

At 8/23/12 12:22 PM, w33zl wrote:
That's what appeals are for. We are not Facebook.

I'm saying the same system should not be used for a BBS and a chat. A BBS is MUCH slower than a chat, and the same system in place in the chat would be slow and clunky.

It should, because that's the difference between someone who's an idiot, and a reformed idiot.

Psh, you think banning someone for a while is going to completely reform them? It takes a while for the message to sink in, but banning is a good solution when that person just needs to go away for a while.

The ban length would be given the same way I suggested all the other bans should be given.

Again, the moderators need to decide for themselves what a good ban length should be. If you don't trust someone with a decision as simple as that, you shouldn't promote them in the first place.

A biased system is a corrupt system. No wonder the USA is in shit all of the time.

There is not a single thing in this world that is completely unbiased.
Moderation and administration is not akin to politics, though a lot of people attribute it to such, as it implements an authoritive figure.

You don't go up to a murder scene and ask the police why there's a dead body on the floor, do you? A user is banned because they broke the rules.

if someone asks why someone else was banned, you can give the reason without giving details. Saying something like "they kept posting in the wrong forum, but I only banned them for a few hours" (or even leaving out the second bit) is totally fine in my opinion.

Who are in power here? The douchebags?

owners control admins, admins control moderators, moderators control users, but users have the power of the masses, which ultimately controls the system. Even owners abide by the system.
You'll have to decide for yourself who's in control.

It actually does.

no, that line of thinking ultimately gets you nowhere in a position of power.

No, they aren't. They're based on being good and bad. And who are you quoting here?

I'm quoting myself.
If you respect someone, you're much less likely to think they're "bad". Why? Because in order to gain respect, you can't be a dick to someone, which would reside in the "bad" area.

Sirtom93 was a user who posted a thread saying he was going to go to his high school with a petrol tank and burn his school down. Authorities were contacted.

At 8/23/12 12:39 PM, egg82 wrote:
I'm saying the same system should not be used for a BBS and a chat. A BBS is MUCH slower than a chat, and the same system in place in the chat would be slow and clunky.

Our only other options are the permanent ban until appeal system in place, or create an entirely new system.

Issuing a ban is as quick as a click of a button.

Psh, you think banning someone for a while is going to completely reform them? It takes a while for the message to sink in, but banning is a good solution when that person just needs to go away for a while.

That's what my multiple-offence system is for: longer bans after each repeated offence.

Again, the moderators need to decide for themselves what a good ban length should be. If you don't trust someone with a decision as simple as that, you shouldn't promote them in the first place.

Reasoning still exists, and exceptions, no doubt, would be made. Offences can involve a user breaking a number of rules at the same time. In this case, their punishment must be more severe. That will be up to the decision of the moderator, but if a punishment is too harsh, the moderator should take some form of disciplinary action.

There is not a single thing in this world that is completely unbiased.
Moderation and administration is not akin to politics

It very much is, according to my dictionary.

if someone asks why someone else was banned, you can give the reason without giving details. Saying something like "they kept posting in the wrong forum, but I only banned them for a few hours" (or even leaving out the second bit) is totally fine in my opinion.

It's not fine in mine.

owners control admins, admins control moderators, moderators control users, but users have the power of the masses, which ultimately controls the system. Even owners abide by the system.
You'll have to decide for yourself who's in control.

The 'power to the masses' dogma is total liberal trash that has zero meaning whatsoever. Not everybody has the intelligence to run a country, and so long as we are smarter than an ant, someone will disagree with someone else.

no, that line of thinking ultimately gets you nowhere in a position of power.

It will get you everywhere, but the liberals wouldn't like you.

I'm quoting myself.
If you respect someone, you're much less likely to think they're "bad". Why? Because in order to gain respect, you can't be a dick to someone, which would reside in the "bad" area.

I know this guy who's a rapist, but he's alright because he sells me drug money.

At 8/23/12 01:00 PM, w33zl wrote:
Our only other options are the permanent ban until appeal system in place, or create an entirely new system.

Issuing a ban is as quick as a click of a button.

That's what i'm saying. In a chat, one moderator can ban someone for a short amount of time (max of one day, though freedom to a week should be granted) and for longer bans (more than a week) two moderators should be reviewing the offense.
In the BBS, two moderators should review the offense anyway, but bans up to a month (maybe two) can be dished out. After that, I think it should be taken to an admin.

That's what my multiple-offence system is for: longer bans after each repeated offence.

The multiple-offense system is already in place.

Reasoning still exists, and exceptions, no doubt, would be made. Offences can involve a user breaking a number of rules at the same time. In this case, their punishment must be more severe. That will be up to the decision of the moderator, but if a punishment is too harsh, the moderator should take some form of disciplinary action.

again, this system is already in place. It pretty much falls under "use common sense"

It very much is, according to my dictionary.

semantics.

It's not fine in mine.

again, semantics.

The 'power to the masses' dogma is total liberal trash that has zero meaning whatsoever. Not everybody has the intelligence to run a country, and so long as we are smarter than an ant, someone will disagree with someone else.

semantics.
Dogma is used in religion, not politics.

The power of the masses is very much real, at the very least on the internet. What happens if a website becomes trash? Everyone leaves. When everyone leaves, the website no longer holds any power. Look at Myspace for an example. Look at Facebook and ThePirateBay as examples opposing Myspace.

It will get you everywhere, but the liberals wouldn't like you.

semantics.

I know this guy who's a rapist, but he's alright because he sells me drug money.

agree, but can we tell the difference between a debate and a flame war? sometimes it's pretty grey.

More activity, I feel as though a lot of moderators aren't ever here. I understand we have lives but less than 5 posts in three months without any reason given should warrant getting that mod replaced.

you'd have to define "without any reason given", but I agree.
I think "mod replacement" would be good, as well. I never see and fresh blood at the bottom of the page :(

Get rid of sad try hard trolls. Whenever they make a post it's to stroke their own or groups cock and just cause problems. I.e. go case by case, some users are constantly just posting trash and they don't need to be here.

Agreed. Sometimes a website is just better off without some people, though I think it should be thought about before labeling someone as a "die-hard troll" - usually they're easy to spot, but sometimes you get that grey area.

It's always the grey areas that get you. If it was all black and white, there wouldn't even be a need for moderators and administrators because programmers could just write a script to take care of all of that.

At 8/23/12 02:43 PM, MikeyS9607 wrote:
Allow pony threads, and just ban people who say shit about it to start flame wars, instead of having one clusterfuck thread. You allow multiple threads of other things, the Breaking Bad thread is in General.
Punish HARD. People will fear you like they did Poozy and bigbadron.